Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Look ... [or: one, two, three, many] Message-ID: <40693@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Date: 4 Jan 91 17:30:55 GMT References: <19717:Jan220:38:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <40569@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu Organization: University of Delaware Lines: 31 Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu In article gessel@masada.cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) writes: >>Well, if you write a FORTRAN interpreter in C, I don't see how you can >>say that FORTRAN is not a subset of C. > -- Darren >You have missed the point completely. If you can write a FORTRAN >interpreter in C, C is as powerful or more than FORTRAN. Actually, I hadn't missed the point. I was asking an Aristotelian/rhetorical question of Dan to show where I though he had missed the point. The first statement was "Here is how to do FORTRAN in C, does that make it a subset?" and Dan said (essentially) "No, because there is FORTRAN syntax that C can't handle." and I responded "Name some." I got the point, and Dan probably got the point but seems to me to have brought up a specious argument that intentionally missed the point in order to continue the argument. Maybe this was not intended, but it seemed that way to me. >A language without any form of dynamic allocation is going to be weak, >(is FORTRAN like this?). Actually, most assembler languages don't have dynamic allocation. I would think you could handle it in FORTRAN the same as in assembler. Hmmm... on second thought, that doesn't answer the question, does it :-) (Disclaimer: I have not looked at FORTRAN in ~7 years. Maybe it has dynamic allocation by now.) -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=